Chris Wright Challenges 'Climate' Orthodoxy

One of the few good things about the current Administration is its pushback against bad energy policy. A recent piece by David Simon at the Washington Examiner focuses on a report by the Department of Energy that challenges "climate change" orthodoxy.

Its foreword is by Chris Wright, the Secretary of Energy, and states in part:

Climate change ... is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty. As someone who values data, I know that improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy. Climate change is a challenge -- not a catastrophe. But misguided policies based on fear rather than facts could truly endanger human well-being.

A regular here is likely to recall that Alex Epstein, author of Fossil Future, helped popularize the term energy poverty. And such a reader may also wonder why the name Chris Wright rings a bell.

I did, and remembered listening to Epstein interviewing him several years ago. The notes for that episode of Power Hour, as the podcast was then called, state in part:

In the past month Chris has done two very cool things.

One is that he has responded to the ESG movement with a report entitled "Bettering Human Lives" that highlights the amazing benefits of the oil and gas industry, and encourages rational thinking about climate.

Chris has also been making a lot of noise with a new "Thank You, North Face" billboard and video campaign.

In our discussion Chris and I cover:

• Why he chose to be an entrepreneur
• The response to his revolutionary ESG report
• The response to his "Thank You, North Face" campaign
• His role working with Mitchell Energy to bring about the shale revolution
• What Chris's activist successes can teach other energy CEOs
• Chris's plans for future activism
• Our common motivations for focusing our careers on energy
• How we think about criticism

The full interview is embedded below.

Chris Wright, proud Oil & Gas CEO

The Examiner piece is worth reading for an update on Wright's work, although the title is bombastic: While it is encouraging to see a government report like this one make rational arguments about a subject long dominated by hysteria, one must keep a broader perspective.

As good as it is to see this, at least compared to what a Democrat administration might produce, it fails to challenge the premises that the government should be weighing in on scientific arguments or that it has any business controlling the economy. This Administration's hostility to freedom of speech and its improper, constant, and corrupt meddling with the economy both severely undercut whatever good this report will accomplish. Furthermore, since there is no plan to dismantle the welfare/regulatory state, everything remains in place for the next leftist administration to reverse any reforms and reinstitute the previous messaging.

As welcome as this report is, it categorically does not "eviscerat[e] climate change hysteria." It offers counter-arguments, which many on the left will dismiss out of hand, if they hear them at all.

Fighting climate catastrophism isn't the government's job and doing do, as an intellectual campaign, is beyond the government's power, anyway. It is wrong to act like the battle is over just because "our guy" is in charge and got a government organ to produce a good report.

This is a battle won, but it is far from the end of the war.

-- CAV

Will: Spare Two GOP Senators

I generally agree with George Will's call for "carnage" for the GOP during the midterm elections, including his exceptions:

If Mike Rogers, former seven-term congressman and chair of the House Intelligence Committee, is not Michigan's next senator, Abdul El-Sayed will be. The Democrat is comfortable in the company of antisemites and Holocaust deniers.

If Sen. Susan Collins loses in Maine, this will be partly because she did something admirable and senatorial. Standing against manufactured hysteria, she voted to confirm Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In 4,192 words spoken on the Senate floor, she examined his extensive judicial record and the sexual assault allegations against him. Demonstrating the complete lack of corroborating evidence, she concluded that the allegations could not meet even the minimal "more likely than not" standard. Read her statement and marvel at its sobriety about the Senate's "advice and consent" duty. This is vanishingly rare among incumbent senators of both parties. [bold added]

These and his hope, obiter dictum for just enough Republicans left to sustain a presidential veto sounds about right to me.

Will's rationale is spot-on:

If Republicans lose not only their House majority, but Senate seats they currently hold in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio and Texas, they might begin to wonder: Could we be doing something wrong? Such a resort to thinking is necessary to begin restoring legislative checks on the executive. And it is necessary if America is ever again going to have a conservative political party. [bold added]

Or, better than merely conservative, I would add, a pro-liberty party.

-- CAV

Housecat Update

A Friday Hodgepodge

I realized the other day that we've had our two long-haired Siamese cats, Lucinda and Seymour, for a couple of years now. Here's an update...

1. Lucinda, who likes to sit on my desk during writing time, has taken to announcing her arrival by stretching up, propping herself on my chair, and tapping me on the shoulder.

I then pick her up and place her on my lap, so she can hop up to her spot.

2. Seymour loves pets and belly rubs, but tends to roll over onto the ground quickly. That's not great for my back, so I've taught him to climb up to the top of the litter cabinet for a session after I say Pets?

No. This is not Lucinda. So far.

3. Lucinda isn't the pet fiend that Seymour is, but she will ask for a session now and then. It's usually at some optimally awkward point during my evening routine -- which she always follows me around to supervise.

She emits a quiet, gravelly and high-pitched meow that sounds almost pathetic when she wants her pets and back scratches.

4. Seymour is a wonderful cat, but he has some kind of skeletal or neurological deficit that affects his movement. (Our vet has said that pinning it down would be very expensive and that there would be little we could do for him. She added that, "so long as he does 'all the cat things,' he'll be fine.")

Fortunately, Seymour does do "all the cat things," but sometimes a little oddly, as if he has had to teach himself some of them.

He does a few of his own things, too. My favorite is that if he hears something unusual enough that he wants the lay of the land, he'll stand on his hind legs like a meerkat and look around.

-- CAV

Rescuing Clarity From 'Perfect'

Miss Manners fields a question about perfect, the latest word to get beaten to death from over-/misuse as a synonym for okay.

I found the wording of the question unclear, but the situation made sense: The questioner, being in charge of bookings for a client, ended up double-booking because the way many people use perfect could mean book it or okay, thanks in such a context.

I appreciate Miss Manners's commiseration, especially as I, too found amazing and awesome annoying in their heydays, but I have long taken to the practical solution offered by the first commenter:

No matter what waffling around is done on their part, you need to pin them down before the conversation ends: "So you would like to book for Oct. 13 at 9? I'll put you down for that, then." Leave no room for misunderstanding.

I did this myself just a few days ago when I was hiring movers for some heavy objects we need to move up- and downstairs at home.

My contact may have been puzzled by my need to clarify, but I now know I won't be waiting around on the day, wondering what some guy who said perfect on the phone actually meant.

-- CAV

Populist Tariffs Very UNpopular

Writing for the Washington Post, Cato's Scott Lincicome reviews polling data about Donald Trump's favorite economic and foreign policy cure-all, and finds that Americans don't care for tariffs.

These responses show that many voters willing to support tariffs in the abstract oppose them when asked to pay less than they're actually paying today. Republicans are no exception: Their support dropped from 70 percent to just 39 percent when asked to pay $1,000 per year to fund their guy's signature policy.

The Cato survey's results are hardly outliers. In nearly every major poll over the past year, tariffs drew 55 to 65 percent opposition or disapproval. Even more respondents, 70 to 75 percent, believed that tariffs raised prices. State battleground polls showed similar findings. This month, CBS-YouGov found that likely voters preferred a congressional candidate who opposed the president's tariff approach by a 26-point margin. And, per a September Fox News poll, GOP support for tariffs has declined 21 points since "Liberation Day" last year, with only "MAGA Republicans" still saying the measures help the economy. [links omitted, bold added]

It is reassuring to know that most adults have enough on the ball to want to put a stop to this policy, and it sounds like it is affecting congressional races. Lincicome quotes the Democrat in Iowa's toss-up Senate race as promising an "end [of] the chaotic tariffs that are sending farms toward a 1980s-style farm crisis."

Uh-oh.

Lincicome draws three lessons from the polling data, which I summarize as follows:

1. Trump's running on the economy and embracing tariffs was a colossal blunder;
2. Policies that sound good to voters in the abstract get rejected when their negative consequences become so apparent; and
3. The conventional wisdom that tariffs are popular and electorally necessary is wrong.

Lincicome ends with a rhetorical question about when the President and Congress will "catch up."

By the sound of it, the Democrats, of all people will help them do so some time after November.

-- CAV

Senate to Miss Regulatory Slam-Dunks?

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Senate has a rapidly-closing time window to pass what it aptly calls "The Save America From California Act," thereby preventing some onerous climate regulations from that state from hamstringing the rest of the country:

California's regulations have national scope since manufacturers typically design products to meet the state's standards. Other states can adopt California's standards, as many have its electric-vehicle mandate and quota regime. Cue the [Congressional Review Act (CRA)], which lets lawmakers overturn a regulation with a simple majority vote of both chambers and the President's signature.

As a bonus, the law also prohibits agencies in the future from promulgating rules that are substantially similar to those that are overturned. Republicans last year used the CRA to potent effect by overturning California's electric-vehicle and truck mandates as well as some 20 other Biden rules.

Now they have a narrowing window of opportunity to use the CRA to kill permanently the California rules blessed by the Biden EPA that require "zero emission" commercial vessels and small off-road engines, lawn mowers and so on. House Republicans passed a CRA resolution overturning the commercial vessel rule this month, and now the Senate can finish the job.

The clock is ticking down on chances to repeal another few other awful rules, as well.

Perhaps they could take a short break from freaking out about "furries" and pass this before they lose their majority, thanks to being dragged down this November by the loon they chose to keep around, instead of removing from office.

-- CAV

No. You Aren't Eating a Credit Card Per Week.

I will admit that I tend to tune out claims from certain quarters to the effect of Something you've been doing for decades is an imminent danger to your health!

Nevertheless, I am aware of at least a dull drumbeat about microplastics and their potential to cause biological harm. I see the subject as one worthy of further study, but not as one worthy of such measures as banning single-use plastics, a favorite cause of many leftists.

Plastic -- and individual freedom for that matter -- are so valuable that any such ban would require extraordinary, conclusive evidence as to the harm of plastic that, for example, its careless use would pose a negligent or reckless threat to other individuals. (And even then, banning it might still be the wrong anwer.)

Ridiculous claims about the amount of plastic we allegedly take in from our environment or the harm that it causes do not foster a careful consideration of the scientific facts or of what (if anything) to do about them.

Faye Flam debunked two such ridiculous claims about microplastics in a piece titled, "The Real Microplastics Problem Isn't in Your Brain."

My favorite was the way-too-easy-to-remember canard to the effect that we're eating the equivalent of a credit card's worth of plastic every week:

Before the plastic spoon image, there was another alarming statistic: that the average person ingests enough plastic each week to make up a credit card. That claim was based on a 2019 study that used several models to estimate that the average person consumes either a tenth of a gram, three-tenths of a gram, or 5 grams (the credit card amount) per week.

[Chemist Mark] Jones noted that other scientists questioned the assumptions in that model, and a couple of studies found that the 5-gram figure was about a factor of a million too high, meaning it would take roughly 23,000 years to consume the amount of plastic in a credit card. Nevertheless, the credit card estimate continues to be propagated in popular media, policy circles and other studies. [bold added]

I like to imagine that some of these other scientists started off from the same thought I did when I first heard that: "I think I'd notice if I ate that much plastic."

Joking aside, Flam asks the same question that too many fail to ask in similar circumstances:

Is it OK for scientists, science journals and journalists to be less rigorous or critical of extraordinary results if they raise awareness of serious problems or otherwise contribute to the greater good?

Flam doesn't directly answer, but she does allude to a cautionary real-life tale:

Mark Jones, a retired chemist who has independently studied microplastics, drew my attention to the Nature follow-up, which the journal did not publicize as heavily as it had promoted the initial findings with a splashy press release. Jones said he's deeply concerned about scientists and journals failing to maintain high standards of evidence. He is worried about eroding public trust, as evidenced by the rising resistance to essential vaccines. [bold added]

Good. Too many scientists and public figures whose advocacy depends on science have been happy to sow panic rather than appeal to reason. It is good to see that some are beginning to understand the value of credibility.

The public may not be as scientifically literate as we would like, but that does not mean they are stupid -- or that they will not notice they are being treated that way, forever.

-- CAV